2012 Iowa Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only

321 Pages·2014·10.06 MB·English

by  Jaclyn Kettler

Abstract

The Right to Party (Resources): Political Party Networks and Candidate Success

by

Jaclyn J. Kettler

How does the structure of political party organizations impact candidates in
elections and the legislature? How does the position of candidates within the party affect
their success? To address these questions in my dissertation, I use social network analysis
to study candidates’ relationships and the context around those relationships. I measure
party networks with campaign finance transactions in seven states for the 2010 and 2012
state legislative elections. After a case study of Texas parties that establishes the validity
of my approach, I compare the structure of party networks across states. Although I
discover that these networks are relatively sparse in general, my results also reveal that
parties in states with competitive legislative chambers tend to be more connected. Finally,
I explore how the party structure influences candidates. By drawing upon Ronald S.
Burt’s (1992, 2005) structural holes theory, I identify influential actors and examine how
their network position impacts their success in legislatures. I find that influential
candidates in the electoral party network are more likely to become a legislative leader in
the following session, demonstrating an important link between electoral and legislative
politics.
Acknowledgments
Many people have helped me with this project and thanking them all is quite
difficult. In this section, I will do my best to thank the wonderful individuals that have
helped me in the dissertation process.
First, I gratefully acknowledge funding from the Rice Social Sciences Research
Institute and the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics. The funding from
these sources made it possible to hire Santiago Alles and Caroline Lowry for data
assistance. Additionally, I am thankful for funding from the Rice Department of Political
Science and the Harlan Program.
I am incredibly thankful for the guidance, the support, and motivation that Keith
E. Hamm has provided over these past six years. He ensured that I pushed myself and
pursued a topic that truly interested me. Through his mentorship, I have developed the
skills and confidence to succeed in academia. Additionally, he has been a good friend and
I will miss our weekly lunches. I am very honored to have worked with Professor Hamm.
The other members of my dissertation committee have also been important to this
project. Bob Stein and Royce Carroll provided advice and other forms of help from the
start. Moreover, their accessibility and guidance was incredibly valuable throughout the
past several years. I am also thankful to Leonardo Dueñas-Osorio for serving as my
outside committee member. His insightful questions, comments, and suggestions have
helped me strengthen my dissertation. Also, thanks to Lyn Ragsdale for providing some
key suggestions early in the process that helped me develop a stronger project.
I am thankful for the help of Mark Jones, Ann Mikus, and Erik Tanner. Their
assistance was essential throughout this dissertation and my graduate experience. I would
iv
also like to thank the other faculty members in the Rice Department of Political Science
who contributed to my training and development as a scholar.
The support of my peers has also been critical for my development and
progression. Tiffany Barnes, Matt Loftis, Seonghui Lee, Carla Martinez Machain, and
Ngoc Phan have provided advice, inspiration, and moral support throughout graduate
school. I am especially thankful to Seonghui for being a stellar officemate that helped me
survive this dissertation. Additionally, I am thankful to David Fortunato, James Hedrick,
Jason Eichorst, Aleks Ksiazkiewicz, Marvin McNeese, and other Rice graduate students
for their support, feedback, and friendship.
I first developed my interest in state politics while interning for the Kansas Senate
as an undergraduate at Baker University. R. Bruce Anderson, Rhonda Wrzenski and other
faculty members at Baker motivated me to attend graduate school and pursue my interest
in state politics. I am very thankful for their early support and instruction.
Without the unending support of my family, I never would have finished this
dissertation. My sister, Sarah, provided unyielding confidence and insightful feedback. I
am also incredibly grateful for my parents’ encouragement and love. Their support has
been essential throughout this project. I dedicate this dissertation to them. I am also
fortunate to be a part of another wonderful family. I am so thankful for all the support the
Jones family has provided me over the years.
Finally, Cook’s encouragement, love, and help were essential throughout this
project. His thoughtfulness and support meant the world to me over the past six years. I
also dedicate this dissertation to him.
Table of Contents
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents v
List of Figures and Tables vi
1. Political Parties in American Politics: An Assessment 1
2. Structural Holes Theory and Political Parties 20
3. Research Design 56
3A. Chapter Appendix 80
4. Texas Political Party Networks 84
4A. Chapter Appendix 113
5. Comparative Party Network Analysis 115
5A. Chapter Appendix 179
6. Candidates in State Party Networks and the Path to Leadership 196
6A. Chapter Appendix 248
7. Conclusion 266
Bibliography 285
List of Tables and Figures
Figures
3.1 Structural Holes Example 68
4.1 2012 Texas Campaign Network 92
4.2 2012 Democratic Party 93

4.3 2012 Republican Party 94

4.4 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Party 100

4.5 Distribution of Democratic Party Constraint Scores by Race Competitiveness 102

4.6 Distribution of Republican Party Constraint Scores by Race Competitiveness 103

4.7 Distributions of Constraint Scores by Leadership Status 109

5.1 Source of Total Donations to Statewide Candidates, State Legislative
Candidates, and State Party Committees 121

5.2 Average Number of Donations in State Elections by Donor Type 123

5.3 Ratio of Individual Donors to the Voting Eligible Population (VEP)
in State Elections 125

5.4 Proportion of Statewide & State Legislative Candidates Giving at Least
One Donation in State Elections by Election 128

5.5 Proportion of State Candidates Contributing to Candidates Only,
Parties Only, or Both Types of Actors in State Elections 131

5.6 Donor Composition by Network Criteria 136

5.7 Number of Actors and Connections by Network Creation Criteria
in 2010 Election: Large Criteria 138

5.8 Number of Actors and Connections by Network Creation Criteria
in 2010 Election: Stricter Criteria 140

5.9 Average Number of Connections by Network Creation Criteria
in 2010 and 2012 Elections 144

5.10 Number of Actors by Network Criteria and Data Type in the 2010 Election 148
vii
5.11 Average Number of Connections by Network Criteria and Data Type in
2010 and 2012 Elections 150

5.12 2012 Colorado Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 157

5.13 2012 New Mexico Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 157

5.14 2012 Iowa Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 158

5.15 2012 North Carolina Republican Party Coalition with
Ally Groups Only 158

5.16 2012 Pennsylvania Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 159

5.17 2012 Oklahoma Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 159

5.18 2012 Colorado Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 160

5.19 2012 New Mexico Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 160

5.20 2012 Iowa Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 161

5.21 2012 North Carolina Democratic Party Coalition with
Ally Groups Only 161

5.22 2012 Pennsylvania Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 162

5.23 2012 Oklahoma Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 162

5.24 2012 Iowa Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 172

5A.1 Number of Unique Recipients by Donor Type in Pennsylvania 179
5A.2 Number of Actors and Connections by Network Creation Criteria
in 2012 Election: Large Criteria 180

5A.3 Number of Actors and Connections by Network Creation Criteria
in 2012 Election: Stricter Criteria 181

5A.4 Number of Actors by Network Criteria and Data Type in 2012 Election 182
5A.5 2010 Colorado Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 183

5A.6 2010 New Mexico Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 183
viii
5A.7 2010 Iowa Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 184

5A.8 2010 North Carolina Republican Party Coalition with
Ally Groups Only 184

5A.9 2010 Pennsylvania Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 185

5A.10 2010 Oklahoma Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 185

5A.11 2010 Colorado Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 186

5A.12 2010 New Mexico Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 186

5A.13 2010 Iowa Republican Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 187

5A.14 2010 North Carolina Democratic Party Coalition with
Ally Groups Only 187

5A.15 2010 Pennsylvania Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 188

5A.16 2010 Oklahoma Democratic Party Coalition with Ally Groups Only 188

5A.17 2012 Colorado Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 189

5A.18 2012 New Mexico Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 189

5A.19 2012 Iowa Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 190

5A.20 2012 North Carolina Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 190

5A.21 2012 Pennsylvania Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 191

5A.22 2012 Oklahoma Party Coalition Networks with Ally Groups Only – Degree
Distribution 191

5A.23 2012 Colorado Candidate and Party Committee Networks – Degree
Distribution 192

5A.24 2012 New Mexico Candidate and Party Committee Networks – Degree
Distribution 192
ix
5A.25 2012 Iowa Candidate and Party Committee Networks – Degree
Distribution 193

5A.26 2012 North Carolina Candidate and Party Committee Networks – Degree
Distribution 193

5A.27 2012 Pennsylvania Candidate and Party Committee Networks – Degree
Distribution 194

5A.28 2012 Oklahoma Candidate and Party Committee Networks – Degree
Distribution 194

6.1 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2012 Colorado Networks 203

6.2 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2012 New Mexico Networks 204

6.3 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2012 Iowa Networks 205

6.4 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2012 North Carolina Networks 207

6.5 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2012 Pennsylvania Networks 208

6.6 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2012 Oklahoma Networks 209

6.7 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Democratic Candidate Competitiveness
in the 2012 Election for Ally Only Networks 215

6.8 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Democratic Candidate Competitiveness
in the 2012 Election for Party Only Networks 216

6.9 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Republican Candidate Competitiveness
in the 2012 Election for Ally Only Networks 217

6.10 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Republican Candidate Competitiveness
in the 2012 Election for Party Only Networks 218

6.11 Predicted Constraint Scores for State Legislative Candidates in 2012
Election for Ally Only Networks 223

6.12 Predicted Constraint Scores for State Legislative Candidates in 2012
Election for Party Only Networks 224

6.13 Breakdown of Top 10 Influential Actors in Ally Only Networks by Actor
Type in 2012 Election 227
x
6.14 Breakdown of Candidates in Top 10 Influential Actors in Ally Only
Networks in 2012 Election 229

6.15 Distribution of 2012 House Democratic Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Party Only Networks 234

6.16 Distribution of 2012 Senate Democratic Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Party Only Networks 235

6.17 Distribution of 2012 House Republican Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Party Only Networks 236

6.18 Distribution of 2012 Senate Republican Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Party Only Networks 237

6.19 Probability of Becoming a Leader in the 2013 Legislative Session by
Constraint Score and Leadership Status in the 2012 Election 242

6A.1 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2010 Colorado Networks 248

6A.2 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2010 New Mexico Networks 249

6A.3 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2010 Iowa Networks 250

6A.4 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2010 North Carolina Networks 251

6A.5 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2010 Pennsylvania Networks 252

6A.6 Distribution of Constraint Scores for 2010 Oklahoma Networks 253

6A.7 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Democratic Candidate Competitiveness
in the 2010 Election for Ally Only Networks 254

6A.8 Distribution of Constraint Scores by Republican Candidate Competitiveness
in the 2010 Election for Ally Only Networks 255

6A.9 Distribution of 2012 House Democratic Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Ally Only Networks 256

6A.10 Distribution of 2012 Senate Democratic Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Ally Only Networks 257

6A.11 Distribution of 2012 House Republican Constraint Scores by Leadership
and Majority Status in Ally Only Networks 258